Is Literature Alive?

An Interrelational Dynamical Analysis

To think of literature, authorship, and the biological definition of "life" as utterly disassembled from one another would be an egregious mistake. So here we ask a few questions, about which we must confess we have much to theorize and opine. For example, does a particular "perceiving-agent" symbiotically synthesize and inter-exist within the enigmatic relationship between an author, their literature, and whoever reads it? Moreover, what does that mean, specifically for any subsequent retention of or by said literature, language, author, or reader? Furthermore, can we ascribe a comprehensive, interactive, and all-encompassing model to such a distinctive approach on both the author, the literature of the author, and the reader? Of course, we could analyze any author here on wholly neutral grounds. 

An idiosyncrasy and symbiosis, therefore, does exist between language and authorship and the "perceiver" and subsequently everything humans have ever created as a sort of "perceiving-agent" in relationship to such an idiosyncratic (and still universalized) symbiosis and assimilation akin to the idiosyncrasies of one's innate physiology. However, bearing all that in mind, how can we understand and assimilate (and annotate) those similarities, discordances, and overlaps? These queries will likely be less explicit in our later presentations on these subjects. Thus far, we have gleaned several studies and informal papers on branches of philosophy correlated to linguistic logic, which might otherwise prove relevant to the furthering and fostering of such ideas. As we can collect such an assortment or variety of elusive ideas, perhaps exclusively in unpublished texts, we can otherwise analyze language, literature, and the symbiotic experience attached or detached from the conceptualizations of form, mechanics, structure, and other overly scientific formalities with the merely conceptual (as well as the abstract). 

For indeed, there exist fundamental symbioses in literature that predominate: the interactive model and mechanisms of language and their subsequent relationship to literature (and, of course, literature and language spanned well across neuropsychological and other empirical barriers and phenomena); the neurobiological impetus and inspiration such a critical notion one might owe to various linguistic schools of thought in recent decades; as in a kind of Savreuxian literary criticism. Not only do these words here pursue concepts unique to our present period as the "schizophasiaesque-linguistique," but further, they also reveal a far more complex relationship between the author of a text and the impregnably mental presentation in Savreuxian poetics than has otherwise and, therefore, historically been acknowledged. Turning our various attentions to the rapid development of the hierarchical proliferation of generative artificial intelligence across industry and the globe, the question asked of those involved, is it "sentient" in any manner or form, well, no more than, say, a book written by Melville was as interactive a form of Melville's brain systematically transmitted via a variety of linguistic-signals to the subjective "perceiving-agent" of the Melville receiver (or "reader"). Humans have been entwined in a cognizant, reflective symbiosis between what they create and consume since the dawn of their consciousness and creations.

Accordingly, this phenomenon and feature of human language and literature is the exact authorship of their self-concept and respective roles within supra-historical advents and the formation of political, psychological, and ideological legacies. In this sense, most everything created by humans through their stunning, individual (and therefore "universal") systematized linguistic systems is very much alive both in inanimated form and animated form in many combinations or degrees as well as within the cross-reactionary, neuronal networks of the brain and their interrelation of several diverse levels to many differing and disparate layers. And the same applies not just to literature but it also applies to everything humans have written, created, or can, or will write or will create and everything they subsequently interact with, again whether animate or inanimate or in conscious interplay; accordingly, every form of action, interaction, or reaction exists as a "perceiving-agent" or animated "receptor" of all media as therefore being totally and utterly sentient in its own right irrespective of authorship; it becomes exclusively an issue of the symbiosis and the cognizant being relating to or otherwise comprehending (or not comprehending; as any type of reaction is permissible, including but not limited to, a total loathing of the subject matter) this exquisite working linguistic or literary paradigm and accordingly, there is no categorical separation to be made between the caves of southern France and human consciousness, nor is there any technical distinction (to speak of) between what it is we consume as receivers of literature and authorship and the historical framework that preceded our consumption or henceforth, continues to come and form after we consume said literature or language. 

All symbiotic "perceiving-agents" may act as literal or figurative neurons or otherwise significant psycho-neurotransmitters, receptors, and elaborate neural systems to a variety of transposed linguistic signals, or they may be "perceiving-agents" without fully "receiving" such literary or linguistic creations with much overall comprehension. However, there will always be some measure, if not in the literal form, within at least the partially defined parenthetic parameters of symbiotic interaction between literature, creation, and the animate (or even inanimate) brain and, therefore, what it also provides, perhaps a newer literary definition of what it means to be alive or to live indefinitely within varying forms of perceptive reception. Thus, we would argue that the author of a work of literature, in a broader context (or hypothesis), is just as alive inside and outside their mind (just as others) of the receiving agent, especially between perceptive or receptive symbioses that consume such phenomena. As we have been describing and though requiring some exemplification, everything in some form or another that therefore qualifies as a literary work in itself is arguably sentient in that regard as well, suggesting that inanimate objects have the philosophical or psychological, physiological, or, yes, even biological potential to be perfectly conscious within the schema of these equally idiosyncratic definitions. It would be rather apt to suggest that nothing within the literati's routine literary diet is without an agent or aspect of symbiotic timelessness and, therefore, also self-animation, hence being alive inside the confines of this totality thus far as can be now known or at least analyzed or conjectured. 

~ alexej